CIA Assassinates Two American Citizens in Yemen

A CIA-JSOC coordinated attack against a vehicle convoy in Yemen today left two American citizens dead along with “some companions.” The slain were high profile Sunni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and magazine editor Samir Khan.

The confirmation sparked immediate concern because despite repeatedly railing at Awlaki for his anti-US sermons and implying he had some sort of tie with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was not charged with any crimes at all, let alone a capital offense.

The Obama Administration had been working with Yemen’s Saleh regime to track down Awlaki, but the New Mexico-born cleric’s tribe is vast and powerful in Yemen’s interior, and the government had long been unsuccessful in moving against him.

His killing was immediately praised by President Obama, saying it was “further proof” of America’s global reach and that there was “no safe haven anywhere in the world” from potential assassination once marked by a president. Most of the domestic coverage in the US centered around praise for the killings and reiterating the half-formed allegations against Awlaki, while glossing over the fact that the administration’s primary objection to Awlaki, and the one which actually put him in US sights in the first place, was his collection of religious sermons critical of America’s imperial ambitions.

This of course explains why there was no trial, because religious sermons critical of a president’s foreign policy are not against the law. Interestingly the closest thing to an allegation of direct AQAP ties was his putative influence on the December 2009 Christmas underbomber. This of course came just days after another failed assassination attempt by US cruise missiles killed a large number of Yemeni civilians.

The other American victim of the assassination was the much lower profile Samir Khan, a North Carolina-born would-be jihadist whose primary claim to fame was his role in the publication of Inspire Magazine, the embarrassingly over-the-top English language webzine.

Inspire Magazine was known for its wacky and ridiculously implausible ideas for terrorist attacks, which almost always spawned media scare pieces treating them as a legitimate threat. Among those was the infamous “Fords With Swords” piece, in which they proposed strapping a bunch of scimitars to a Ford truck and driving it into a crowd of conveniently located infidels. Needless to say, the “plot” was never attempted.

Though Khan was at the very least a self-professed member of AQAP, he too was not actually charged with any crimes, and most of his press centered either around the magazine itself, or his faux-gangsta Internet releases, including “Jihad 4 Eva” graffiti and his “Cold Diss of Hosni Mubarak.”

The sheer goofiness of Khan’s AQAP role and the entirely speculative nature of Anwar Awlaki’s must inevitably raise further questions about the legality of the US government simply assassinating them, and what it might mean for others who run afoul of the administration for one reason or another. It seems trials are simply not a part of the president’s strategy when he is criticized, and assassinating a critical cleric appears to rank among his proudest moments since taking office.

The assassination was mostly cheered by Obama’s potential opponents in 2012 as well, with both Rick Perry cheering it as “an important victory” and Mitt Romney terming the extralegal assassination “proper justice.” Rep. Ron Paul (R – TX) was predictably the lone critic, saying that he was concerned with “assassinating American citizens without charges.”

Author: Jason Ditz

I recall Ron Paul cheering Bin Laden's assassination and proclaiming justice was done. Is he now all of a sudden against assassinations because the guy happened to be birthed on a pile of rocks and dirt encircled by imaginary lines that some talking monkeys like to call "America"? Ok, whatever man, blow your fake bullshit straight out your ass, I'm not fooled.

Christopher

*cough* Bin Laden had big ties to 9-11. This guy had ties to the wrong people, and was charged with no formal crimes, but he was still a US citizen. See the difference? Osama: Clear terrorist, not a citizen. This guy: Not clear terrorist, American citizen.

Watson

Last I looked, bin Laden wasn't an American citizen. Further, bin Laden was formally charged with the two embassy bombings in Africa which resulted in the deaths of scores of people and would have carried the death penalty.

In contrast, this guy doesn't even have a misdemeanor charge against him … AND he is an American citizen under the protection of the Constitution.

liveload

If the holocaust survivors had the courage and dignity to hunt down people who were indubitably guilty, arrest them, and bring them to trial; then why can't we at least afford that much due process to those we accuse of capital crimes? It would have been trivially easy to bring him in, but they didn't and Ron Paul proclaimed justice was done. So which is it, are assassinations good or bad according to him? You down-rate me on an antiwar site for calling a politician out on his inconsistencies?http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/05/09/lesso…

"Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served" -Rep Ron Paul

Those who blindly follow without question are part of the problem, aren't they?

El Tonno

Your point being?

liveload

What's it to you?

JulianAlien

You said one thing and then you said another.I have seen this on other comment sections,and strangely enough in 1950's conspiracy books this was disinformation used in popular magazines and editorials to sway or confuse the American mind.Ron Paul fights for justice by trial and you Tistom et a-pe

liberranter

It seems trials are simply not a part of the president’s strategy when he is criticized…

This "president" (read: puppet figurehead) has nothing to do with any "strategy." Once again, Barack Obama is just the latest fungible face for any number of losers who serve as the mask in front of the real power holders within the military-industrial-police state complex that run this latest incarnation of Murder Incorporated.

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you…

tio zapata

Mass murderer obomber is just the latest in a long list of mass murderers ! No excuses, obomber should be in prison with bush/ cheney and the rest !

baz

these men were murdered. Full stop. The CIA is guilty of murder. If these two men were guilty of a crime, they should have been tried and had a chance to defend themselves against any evidence. Did the US government have any evidence??

Roger Lafontaine

What exactly did he do – I don't think I ever found out – 'preached against the US?' That's a capital crime? Was there ever any specific statements or charges? He encouraged others to fight against US interventions? Was he merely an 'effigy' for terrorism – a 'straw man' to burn and destroy to alleviate terror anxieties? Of course the 'collateral' victims don't matter. I dare not even label them victims lest I be counted as 'one of them'. The fact that they were accompanying him has already convicted them. The drones rule the world and the Americans rule the drones- for the time being.

Pap

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H.L. Mencken

Richard Haydn

Great quote Pap.

John_Muhammad

I wonder how many of those in Washington singing the praises of Obama's policy will be as happy when they find out they could very well be on the hit list for being his political opponents. Remember, no approval by a court, no oversight, no accountability, no evidence, no anything except the President's whim. Rick Perry what would YOU say if I told you your name was on the assassination list? Mitt Romney, how about you? You couldn't deny it was there, because you'd have no way of finding out, no way of clearing your name, no evidence to refute, no place to hide while awaiting trial.

Only God has the right to end people's lives without an explanation- and guess what, Obama? You're not him, despite what you may be thinking. You, sir, are nothing more than a common murderer, and no better than those you claim to be fighting against. You beheld the evil, and lo! you have become one of their number.

WashingtonDC goddamn

Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama could issue the order while shanking it out on the golf links.

F.A. Hayek Fan

The American people appear to have little to no critical thinking skills. If you peruse both liberal and conservative political forums you will see the majority applauding these assassinations. There is very little discussion concerning the probable negative ramifications of a president being given the power to arbitrarily murder a person at just a word. What discussion there is is met with scorn and derision. We appear to be incapable of thinking in the long term or recognizing how the government ALWAYS ABUSES the authority given it. However, this is the same population that has supported the evisceration of the Bill of Rights so while I am sorely disappoint, I am not surprised. I fear for my children and grandchildren because they are the ones who will be targeted with this new "authority."

RIchard.Hayden

It is hard to present the bigger picture to so many people. We would not be chasing down people with drones if we were not an Empire. But we will can still do it, once person at a time. Keep spreading the word. We cannot give up.

ghender1

During the civil war American citizens were killed by the US government. If you take up arms against the US, you can be killed.

Ahem… Citizens were killed for just getting in the way of government. Arms be damned. And, no, you don't just kill someone because YOU say someone does such and such. Offer up the proof or its all heresay and lies. Which, of course, is Uncles Scams modus operandi.

JulianAlien

The proper name for that was the War of Northern Aggression.We still call it that down here.And yes Lincoln was a war criminal by the constitutional standards.

AntiFed1791

Precedent set. Prepare now for a free-for-all on "domestic terrorists".

Bingo. That's exactly what this is all for. Laying the foundation, and forthcoming drones, to menace the rest of us.

R.C.

I agree.

This is ultimately the endgame.

JLS

"The Justice Department demanded the case be thrown out on the grounds that the courts have no oversight over who the president can assassinate on the grounds of national security. Eventually the court dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was up to “elected branches of government” to decide if people were to be assassinated."

But…but…we still live in the freest country in the world right? We're still the good guys, right?

beeboltwu

You are the good guy until Mr. Goodman says otherwise.

John Ellis

NO PROOF

The father of this innocent man, “innocent until proven guilty” man, demanded of Obama proof that his son had guilt sufficient for death by assassination. Whereupon the judge said that if the President declared the man guilty, then no proof was needed as a president in time of war — must have all power necessary to win the war.

Comes now a full day after the murder by assassination, with Obama still not offering proof, with mainstream corporate media glorifying Obama and drawing all attention away from proof, and with mainstream public so thought controlled as to feel that the word of Obama was absolute truth, far better then proof.

So, an innocent man expressed the belief that the brutal imperialism of Empire USA should be opposed by force and it cost him his life.

baz

He was not innocent. He had brown skin and was a muslim. So what if he was a US citizen?? He wasnt REALLY american….Real americans are white and christian. The fact that he had US citizenship was a mere technicality. Just like the American citizen murdered by Israel on the Gaza flotilla. The lives of people with brown skin are just not a priority. Kill first and ask questions later…….

Pardon my sarcasm. I am really made sick by this. THis is just outright racism. Why dont the american politicians who have praised this murder just act like men for once and admit they are racists??!!

By the same token, we should have bombed timothy Mcveigh. How come we bothered to find and arrest him?? Because he as a white christian thats why!!

The irony is this could be construed as "brown on brown" violence. If anyone could wrap their head around that one. No, the man was killed by someone who's already proven to be a liar and doesn't mind regularly washing his hands in blood.

Brian

The way it is reported, there was not even a hint of doubt concerning the man's links to 'Al Qaeda'. When I watched the BBC's coverage this afternoon, I had to remind myself that the man has not been convicted of anything, that he is not wearing a uniform or carrying a weapon, that he is not on or near a battlefield, just somewhere in Yemen. Presumably the 'companions' you mention were as 'guilty' as he. He might well have been a jihadist, he might well have been some kind of enemy of the US. It's sickening, though, the way it's all about his citizenship–as though that's what makes it worth even thinking about the morality of one extrajudicial killing by remote control among so many others.

PWilson

Calling him a Citizen means he is suppose to have Due Process, He should be tried by a jury of his peers not assinated without showing Just Cause.

mickperry

This is what you can now expect if you consider that you have the right to criticise your country's foreign policy? Meanwhile, 'they' continue to hate us because we slaughter their families in their tousands; and our obtuse leaders and their equally unthinking and uncaring minions stand condemned before history.
It is the urgent responsibility of every sentient citizen who opposes such wanton depravity to resist it with every sinew of their being.

JLS

"If the president does it, it's not illegal" Richard Nixon

Emilyrose

Now here is a thought.
Will the Wall Street bankers finally do something altruistic and of use to their fellow Americans?
How ironic it would be if they become the human shields protecting the 99% from mass elimination by some convenient plane crashing down ( or similar) which will possibly be used if the continuing police brutality and other tactics fail to work.
I put NOTHING past the present American politicians with but a few exceptions.

FuckTheRich

What if the Yemen government acted on the FACTS that the US politicians were Terrorists?
Then cowardly sent drones in to Kill them!!!!

thedissenter

Would never happen. Saleh has been taking money from the USG for years and allowing them to kill citizens of Yemen while claiming that his troops are doing it.

Michael

Now let me get this right as long as our President says kill someone because they are a national security threat that is okay. Ok so this means that the President can order the execution of Latino and African American gangs in the inter city, and also execute those who like carrying guns. The amazing thing about this is that lets say the President says that the ascension of Rick or Mitt to the office of the President is a national security issue he has the power to authorize the beginning of their long sleep.

Michael

Cont…This is because he alone has the power to command this. We have too many lawfakers creating legislation that has the consequences of slowly yet surely destroying our get nation. Let us remember these words “We the People” these beginning words of our Republics Constitution was never thought could be replaced by an inferior concept for governance, we the people have arrived fully too inferior governance.

R.C.

Yes, he could order the assassination of Mitt, Rick, Michelle, Ron, Ralph or whoever else he deems a "threat". …and the apologists over at the Huffington Post would loudly applaud it.

Michael

cont..Those who wanted America on this foundation are not just insane they are morally and criminally insane. While saying these things are ok in the defense of our national security they do not even believe it. They believe this strengthening must occur subtle, why is this, subtle because the depth of this power then will not be brought before the general public's rational mind, it simply appeals to sentiments, this keeps a firm grip on the minds of the greater public while they continue to make the world in the image they chose. Which is a world were human dignity means nothing the right to set a course for your life is only a choice as long as it is an approved choice by those who know better. My fellow Americans we ought to repeal this option of the Emperor Obama or whoever is the next Emperor. They do not believe in your natural excellence, you’re priceless human worth…..they think you are trash and they are intent on proving that to G-d.

carl

Fascism has a new, post-colonial face.

Wootie Berster

Jason, I am rather shocked at the huge numbers of people defending this action in various articles and comments on the net. Most of these people are of the sort habitually inclined to call themselves "conservative" and to endlessly pontificate on the Constitution. I am forced to the opinion that most of these (all?) have never read that document at all. Furthermore, having absolutely no respect for the organized rule of law, they are quite obviously not conservative either. What manner of insanity is this (ie J's "bizarro world"?) when radical anarchists float around blithely believing themselves to be conservative constitutionalists? For it is the radical anarchists, historically, who have been most apt to favor extremist acts of violence and lawlessness in pursuit of their ideological aims. Not conservatives.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….. Thomas Jefferson"

Watch out Tom! Thems terrorist speak. You're a marked man now and drones are on the way.

RIchard Haydn

Sorry to be a little off topic. I was just wondering what anyone thought of the idea that Ron Paul might visit with the Wall Street protestors and exchange ideas. After all, Dr. Paul is all about keeping Wall Street out of the trough – he just needs to convince the protestors that government was of course a big part of the crash and all the rest. But it presents a perfect oportunity to work with those on the Liberal side. They need a voice. A town meeting with a group from the movement? That would make a very interesting talk. What do you think?